The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leftosphere[edit]

Leftosphere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Stub article on the dictionary definition of a not very notable neologism. --Dynaflow babble 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that nominating an article for deletion within three minutes of its creation ([1][2]) is a little premature. Blogosphere was a neologism at one time, too; this term isn't brand new coinage, and has seen wide usage by popular bloggers (indeed, by notable bloggers; the article cites examples). What is the relevant notability guideline, and what is gained by so rapid a nomination of the article? Simon Dodd (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:NEO#Articles on neologisms and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article's viability is precarious on both grounds, but bringing it here to AfD rather than PROD'ing it allows better vetting of the decision of whether or not to delete. --Dynaflow babble 22:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote keep, but I concede that it's dubious under WP:NEO (I hadn't seen that guideline before), and will go with the consensus when one emerges.Simon Dodd (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered entering this into Wiktionary instead? --Dynaflow babble 22:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that I wouldn't know how. If it's more appropriate there, so be it. Or, for that matter, if the article would be better merged into blogosphere, that's okay with me, too.Simon Dodd (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more or less the same deal as it it here, at least as far as the interface with the site goes (see wikt:Help:Starting a new page). --Dynaflow babble 22:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Even if expanded to be more than a dicdef, I think it fails WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki per JohnCD. If this ever becomes a notable enough neologism with lots of references in secondary sources (the fact that some conservative bloggers use it is not really sufficient) it would be easy to recreate it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.